Archive for the 'Legal Articles' Category

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

Your Collaborative Divorce: How many professionals does it take?

By Michael A. Mastracci

By now you may have heard of collaborative divorce in the news and around the blogosphere. Collaborative law is a trend that has taken hold and is perhaps at the tipping point of becoming a readily available mainstream method for separating and divorcing couples. There are many incentives and rewards for sticking with the process.

In its simplest of explanations two divorcing spouses who each select collaboratively trained attorneys agree, along with their respective counsel, to settle the couple’s issues outside of court. The four people work together to find solutions that are acceptable to all concerned. They sign a contract in the form of a participation agreement, which is the cornerstone of the collaborative process. If for some reason, one or both of the parties decide that they no longer desire to resolve their disputes outside of court, neither of the two collaborative attorneys can represent their clients in any contested case.

At its origin in 1990, collaborative law was invented by Stuart G. Webb out of a divorce attorney’s frustration and disgust of seeing families torn apart by the adversarial divorce system. While the mechanics of the process may vary some, the collaborative methods are beneficial in many ways. Generally great care is taken to ensure that your children are kept out of potential conflict and that the controversy is kept to a minimum between the parties. There is no question that in a collaborative resolution you will maintain far greater control of the outcome of your divorce than you will by engaging one another in contested litigation. It is generally less expensive and quicker than litigation and helps to maintain a sense of integrity and respect between you and your former partner, which is especially important when children are involved.

When collaborative law first started it involved two attorneys and two clients. Later, if a need arose that the attorneys thought would be better addressed by another collaborative professional they would all agree to utilize the services of such professionals. These professionals may include, but are not limited to, divorce coaches, therapists, social workers, child specialists, financial neutrals and financial planners. In litigation, each side hires his or her hired gun to further that side’s “position.” In collaborative negotiations the professional becomes an aid to the process and thereby assists both parties and the attorneys to reach successful outcomes.

In recent years there has been a strong movement toward a “team approach” in collaborative law. On the one end more and more attorneys are becoming comfortable in inviting other professionals to assist, subject to the client’s approval.  However, at the other end of the spectrum there are many attorneys who will not participate in the traditional two lawyer- two client model. These collaborative attorneys push the team onto the field and basically tell the prospective clients to play with the team or play with yourself. In other words, it resembles a take it or leave it proposition. It is this writer’s opinion that what is right for many people is something in the middle and that is one of the benefits of the process – it can be made to suit your family’s individual needs. How many professionals will it take for your collaborative divorce to be a success?



Friday, November 21st, 2008

The Collaborative Paradox

The Collaborative Divorce model requires a commitment on the part of the divorcing couple to work together honestly and with integrity. This article will explore how, within the framework of the collaborative model, divorcing couples must work together in order to live apart.

As a team, the primary tasks of the divorcing couple are to resolve shared problems involving custody and parenting, child support and alimony, marital property, and other practical matters. As individuals, each member of the divorcing couple has a responsibility to build a separate identity as a non-married person.

How can pain, disenchantment, and alienation — all normal feelings resulting from divorce — be reconciled with understanding and respecting each others’ needs? Is it possible for these seemingly paradoxical tasks to be integrated? To accomplish this and to attain a “successful divorce”, there are two parallel tasks to complete — reinventing oneself as a single person (“I”) and maintaining a form of partnership (“we”) to create long-term solutions. This article presents effective techniques for resolving these seemingly contradictory goals.

The Collaborative Model

Collaborative practice offers tremendous benefits for divorcing couples. A core element of the collaborative model is the goal of creating solutions that take into account the highest priorities of both parties and their children. Identifying shared goals and legitimate interests (i.e. needs, concerns, values, and objectives) of both parties, and finding resolutions that will meet the interests of all involved, is a hallmark of the collaborative practice approach.

In traditional litigation-based models of family law, the emotional turmoil couples experience during the separation process is frequently exacerbated by the adversarial nature of the court process. This exacerbation increases the distress and mistrust between the separating couple, breaks down their ability to communicate effectively with one another, and destroys any residual trust the couple may have had. Consequently, it becomes more difficult for the parties to resolve issues. The collaborative model provides divorcing couples with the support and guidance needed to move through the process in a more amicable manner.

While the collaborative process centers on a discovery of personal needs and interests, and how these can be met by each spouse, it is important to remember that conflict is inevitable for nearly all divorcing couples. Indeed, people who are seeking a divorce are experiencing higher than normal levels of conflict. Each spouse has their own version of the breakup and selectively glosses over and highlights those aspects which reinforce their perspective. The collaborative practice gives spouses the help they need to build a story that both can accept, allowing for a smoother resolution and easier transition to single life.

The Psychological Stages of Divorce

It is never easy to end a marriage, and everyone who goes through a divorce will experience an emotional transition. Often, the emotional upheaval of separation and divorce is the primary catalyst leading to a long, drawn-out legal process.

While it may appear that the erratic and emotional behavior occurring during the divorce process is random in nature, many psychologists theorize that there are specific and predictable stages that occur during the divorce process. The combined stages generally take an average of three years to complete and may occur in a specific order or may, in some cases, overlap. Spouses are often at different stages as they progress through the divorce process. The following stages may vary if the divorce is mutual.

Stage 1: Shock and Blame. The individual who initiates the divorce blames the spouse for all of the problems in his or her life. The initiator generally experiences the first stage of divorce while still living with the spouse. Initiators are frequently unhappy for some time and need relief from the stressful marriage. Although there is often a measure of relief, they may also experience guilt, fear, anger, and depression in response to the decision to divorce. The non-initiator, on the other hand, begins the first stage after learning of the spouse’s intent to divorce or after the couple has physically separated. It is at this point that they may develop a negative self-image, appear sad much of the time, become depressed, and experience a profound sense of being shell-shocked. Tending to the children’s needs at this time is very difficult.

Stage 2: Mourning the Loss. This stage is about acknowledging the end of the relationship. It is a time when grief can feel overwhelming. People often become self-pitying as, in their eyes, the future appears hopeless and meaningless. Individuals are intensely preoccupied with their own feelings and unable to concentrate on the real world. The identity and role of spouse is lost, and with that loss comes a feeling of grief no less intense than grieving the actual death of a partner. Often, spouses experience fear that they will never recover and the grief will never end. Diminished parenting may continue. Some parents may hold onto a child in an attempt to recapture the separated spouse. Others may behave in a rejecting manner to their child because of perceived similarities between the child and the spouse.

Stage 3: Anger. Though anger is experienced at almost every stage of the divorce transition, it is now the dominant trait. More often than not, the anger, which may have righteous quality to it, is most often directed toward the spouse. “No fault” divorce does not seem to alleviate the need to blame the other party as the one responsible for the dissolution. The need to perceive one spouse as the “bad” individual and the other as the “wronged” spouse continues. Interestingly, during this time the individual’s energy levels often increase and function to propel the process forward.

Stage 4: Being Single. This is the stage which begins after the initial separation when the terror of living alone and mourning the death of the marriage have run its course. It is the time when one begins to enrich their new life as a single person with new friends, new experiences, and new job challenges. Individuals begin to seek experiences that are not related to and do not involve their former spouses. These experiences are of paramount importance in reinforcing their own sense of self-worth as a separate individual. A commitment to the future and individual development of the self in the absence of the other partner are the primary characteristics of Stage 4.

Stage 5: Re-entry. A new level of stability is now achieved. Individuals regain the feeling of control over their own lives. Long-term plans and commitments can now be made.

The Development of Independence

Readiness to live life without one’s partner requires more than a geographical separation. Achieving psychological independence from the marriage and the former spouse is a critical task for the newly divorced. Individuals must prove to themselves that they are a person who can survive physically and emotionally as a single person instead of as part of a couple. That means validating the fact that one is a person of value and worth in one’s own right, not only as part of a couple. Divorce is much more than the legal piece of paper. It is predominately a psychological process of self-renewal.

In a marriage, couples have shared the deepest part of themselves with each other, traversed the joy and adversities of life together, and loved one another before the love died. It should come as no surprise that ending this set of experiences can be temporarily destabilizing. Often, people only discover the enormous extent to which marriage has defined their personal identity when they are confronted with being on their own.

As a no-longer or soon-to-be unmarried person, the time has come to grow up and take responsibility for one’s life. It means confronting one’s dependencies and fears. The newly divorced must give up blaming the former spouse for their lot in life. It takes enormous courage to admit that what was wrong with the marriage was, at least in part, also wrong with themselves.

When they were a married couple, there was a kind of fusion that took place in the relationship, i.e. the model of “togetherness”, that together the two will be whole, prevailed. The focus was on the “we”. However, from the perspective of the newly divorced or divorcing, the fusion model is no longer applicable. It must be replaced with a model that requires each person to take on responsibility for their own well being. One plus one no longer equals one (“we”). It equals three — two separate beings (“I”) whose relationship forms a third entity, requiring them to stretch beyond themselves for the sake of redefining their post-divorce partnership.

The Need for a Constructive Mode of Resolving Conflict and Developing Independence

Constructive modes of resolving conflict are thus necessary to assist the couple to think of their relationship in new ways, to feel differently about each other, and to act differently toward one another without jeopardizing their own sense of identity.

The act of balancing one’s obligations to one’s spouse as well as and the obligations to oneself during a Collaborative Divorce process is admittedly difficult. Being stranded between the worlds of togetherness and separateness, sometimes acting as friends and sometimes strangers, brings nothing but confusion to the individuals involved.

Divorcing couples face competing needs to simultaneously establish themselves as independent of each other and work collaboratively, as a team, throughout the divorce process. They must work through strong feelings of anger, frustration, and fear, all of which will inevitably result in interpersonal conflict. If not managed properly, the couple’s capacity to work cooperatively toward post-divorce resolutions for themselves and their children will be diminished.

Each spouse leaves the marriage with his or her own version of what went wrong. Sins of omission — failure to communicate, failure to contribute one’s share, failure to be affectionate and supportive — are cataloged and hurled in the other’s direction. Divorcing couples attack each other mercilessly, deny their own responsibility for the failure of the marriage, heap blame on the other, and then use all their ammunition to argue that the “guilty” party must assume a disproportionate share of the burden.

To the individual, these emotions are very real and therefore must be acknowledged. They cannot be dismissed. Nor, however, can they be mismanaged. If they are negated or not appropriately addressed, the collaborative process will fail.

When people feel unfairly judged or falsely blamed, their own identity and self-esteem are challenged. They feel victimized and shift their focus to saving face and refusing to accept blame. Communication then shifts away from the actual issues in conflict to the secondary issue of how others will see them in this process. They need to be seen, both to themselves and the world, as a certain kind of person. (“It wasn’t me who was not a loving partner. I treated you well. It was you who withdrew affection.”)

Saving face is very closely linked to defensiveness. Defensiveness is simply a way of protecting one’s self-image from those who are challenging that image. Simply put, defensiveness is behavior to protect oneself from a perceived threat or attack. When one spouse makes a judgmental statement toward the other, it will threaten their spouse’s self-perception. If the two perceptions are incongruent, the defensive person may be inclined to justify, deny or attack.

When spouses become defensive, they often will respond in one of two unproductive ways: passively, by shutting down or withdrawing, or aggressively, by verbally attacking, judging, or blaming their spouse. From a communication perspective, defensiveness results from how people talk to each other. Those on the defensive often feel confused and profoundly misunderstood. They cannot empathize with or understand another point of view that differs from theirs and are often unwilling to take in new information.

Defensive behavior from either party hampers communication, preventing productive dialog and better understanding from taking place. These behaviors need to be addressed so that communication can be refocused.

Constructive Modes of Resolving Conflict

By shifting communication to a more constructive mode, greater understanding and successful conflict resolution are more likely to occur.

The following list describes some intervention strategies that a collaborative professional may use to address defensiveness so that understanding and productive communication between the couple can be restored:

1. Help each person to acknowledge or empathize with the defensive spouse’s point of view with the intention of helping them feel heard.

2. Refocus the discussion to a less conflicted topic.

3. Point out the defensive behavior as soon as it happens.

4. Balance the power between the spouses.

5. Describe the process as the professional sees behaviors happen.

6. Probe to clarify what motivates the defensiveness.

7. Help the couple to recognize and understand their own emotions as well as their spouses’.

8. Encourage the couple to talk about their feelings so they can be dealt with directly.

9. Remind the couple that all feelings should be expressed in a non-confrontational way.

10. Help each person to acknowledge the other’s feelings as legitimate. Although they may feel differently about a situation, both sets of feelings are real. Denying either spouse’s feelings is likely to intensify those feelings. Encouraging feelings to be expressed allows the couple to return to the substantive issues in dispute so that they can be resolved.

Conclusions

The collaborative model requires that the divorcing spouses work toward a resolution that meets both sets of needs. It means reframing their relationship so that despite the conflicts that may exist between them, they function as mutually respectful working partners, not adversaries.

In order for this to occur, the divorcing individuals must acknowledge the paradox that calls for them to be unified in a new partnership while simultaneously moving forward toward a greater separateness between them. Each needs to take responsibility for his or her own well being while still being responsive to the other. Developing an ability to assert their own feelings and needs while maintaining a genuine caring for their soon-to-be former spouse is a difficult challenge, but one that must be met.

For the collaborative model to work effectively, individuals must replace the need for confirmation from a spouse with the ability to accept differences. Where there was once sameness, now there is otherness — a difficult adjustment for most people to make. The successful divorcing couple will develop the ability to take responsibility for themselves and the courage to validate the reality of the other.

When conflict and defensiveness arise between the couple and interfere with collaborative functioning, various interventions can be used to help the couple learn to more directly assert themselves and clear the way for caring attention to the other. The collaborative professional will guide couples through the process and help them learn to assert themselves individually while still maintaining a caring attention to the other.

 ***

From the Author

During the throes of coming to grips with my own divorce and reinventing myself, I fell down countless times. Each time that I found the courage to get up, I gained wisdom that propelled me forward. In addition, I spent numerous hours researching the literature on divorce, and in so doing, I developed a solid grasp of the psychology of the separation process. I’m savvy about what a person has to go through to make it to the other side; that’s how I successfully help other people transition today.

Now I run a nationwide phone-counseling service for divorce recovery. With three decades of private psychotherapy experience, my divorce counseling has helped hundreds of people face their challenges and build successful lives. My practice has been profiled in The Washington Post and Harper’s Bazaar as well as on TV and radio.

With my training in mediation and Collaborative Divorce as well as psychology, I use an interdisciplinary approach. Attorneys and therapists have the same helping goal, but they speak different languages. Divorce lawyers can be aggressive, but clients’ aggression may cause poor legal judgment. I move between legal and psychological perspectives to make them more compatible.

It is my goal to make certain that you avoid some of the pitfalls and danger signals that I overlooked with my former personal confusion. Indeed, it is precisely because of my personal pain and my professional knowledge that I am confident I can help you face your fears and become a more self-determining person.

You can visit Dr. Deborah Hecker on the web at http://www.drdeborahhecker.com/ or by phone at 1.888.777.3585.



Friday, December 7th, 2007

Sign Up Now for Collaborative Law Training Course

If you are an attorney or professional interested in the practice of collaborative law, an excellent two-day Collaborative Law Basic Training Course has been scheduled in the Baltimore area for Friday, March 14 and Saturday, March 15, 2008. The course is open to attorneys, mental health professionals and financial professionals but is primarily geared to attorneys practicing family law.

The training will be conducted by attorney Sherri Goren Slovin who has practiced law in Cincinnati, Ohio for 27 years. Sherri’s practice is focused on collaborative law, collaborative practice and mediation. She is an Ohio State Bar Association Certified Family Relations Law Specialist and outstanding credentials to the training course:

  • Founding member and past chairperson of the Collaborative Family Lawyers of Cincinnati, among the earliest practice groups formed in the U.S.
  • Member of the Board of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals
  • Co-chair of the IACP Practice Group Leadership Committee
  • Extensive ADR training, including Harvard Law School’s advanced negotiation skills program
  • Author of numerous articles on collaborative practice and collaborative negotiation
  • Nationally and internationally sought workshop leader on collaborative family law, collaborative practice and collaborative negotiation
  • Named one of the top 50 female lawyers in Ohio by Ohio Super Lawyers in 2004, 2005 and 2006
  • Selected by her peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America since 2001
  • Awarded the highest rating (AV) by Martindale Hubbell

Registrations received before December 20, 2007 are $425; after December 20, the cost is $450. Space is limited to 40 participants. A Certificate of Attendance will be awarded to those who attend both days of training. Please click here for additional information and to print a registration form.

The course will be held at the Turf Valley Resort located in Ellicott City (Baltimore area), Maryland. A block of hotel rooms has been reserved for course participants at a discounted price. To receive the discount, please mention code CL#27L200 when you make your reservations. Reservations can be made by calling the resort directly at 410-465-1500 or toll-free at 888-833-8873.

If you have any questions, please contact attorney Ali Doyle, Esq. at 443-520-9690, via email at ADoyleLaw@aol.com or click here to visit her website.



Saturday, October 6th, 2007

Baltimore Sun Looks at Collaborative Divorce

Same split with a lot less spat was the humorous definition of collaborative divorce used to headline an excellent article that appeared yesterday in the October 5, 2007 issue of the Baltimore Sun. (Click here to read the full article by reporter Melissa Harris). Collaborative family law is making the news as more people search for ways to divorce without all the blood-letting and acrimony often typical of American divorce.

Collaborative divorce is a team approach in which the divorcing spouses, their respective attorneys and sometimes other professionals work together in an atmosphere of professionalism, calm and respect to dissolve the couple’s family and financial relationships. The brainchild of a Minnesota attorney in 1990, collaborative divorce seeks to decrease the bitterness, length and cost of divorce in America.

Collaborative professionals — attorneys, financial experts, divorce coaches, child specialists — receive specialized training in the collaborative approach and contract to work toward the goal of a mutually acceptable settlement. Collaborative law is dedicated to solving legal issues outside the court system. Should the process break down and the couple decide to take their case to court, the collaborative team, particularly attorneys, is contractually bound to excuse themselves from the case.

Collaborative divorce is not the right fit for everyone. Both parties must be willing to put aside the hurt and anger that accompanies divorce and commit to resolving their differences fairly. Collaborative divorce is particularly effective when a divorce includes children. The collaborative process helps parents learn to communicate effectively and helps build the skills they will need to parent their children successfully but apart.

The Baltimore Sun article follows the divorce of Columbia, Maryland couple Frank and Stephanie Ellis. The Ellises were able to come to agreement about possessions, finances and child custody in four collaborative sessions at a cost of about $14,000, less than half the cost of a typical contested divorce. "The process felt like a business meeting," Stephanie said.

The skill of the collaborative team also helped the couple define and focus on the actual issues of their separation without getting bogged down in their emotions. Frank described a disagreement over how the couple would split a tax refund. "It got to the point where we both had sort of drawn lines in the sand and weren’t going to bend. We took our attorneys and went into separate rooms and had venting sessions. … It’s amazing the things you choose to argue about." Once emotions were under control, the couple was able to reach an agreement.

The Ellises were successfully able to dissolve their marriage and settle child custody issues through the collaborative process. They have come out of the process with the ability to interact and communicate effectively and without acrimony. Their daughter, they say, is healthier and happier because of it.



Saturday, March 10th, 2007

Advantages of an Uncontested Divorce

An uncontested divorce is where husband and wife can reach a decision as to the terms of the divorce without going to trial. While no divorce is truly "uncontested" in the sense that there are no disagreements, these disagreements do not always have to be resolved in court.

Uncontested divorce is the way most people divorce. Compared to the protracted litigation usually involved in contested divorces, an uncontested divorce is simpler, far less expensive and much quicker. Uncontested divorce also offers you and your spouse the opportunity to end your marriage quietly and with dignity. While uncontested divorce is not viable for every divorcing couple, it is appropriate for many more couples than some divorce lawyers like to admit.

Believe it or not, you and your spouse do not have to yet agree on every issue for an uncontested divorce to be right for you. It’s not so much a question of agreement as a desire to minimize the legal expenses badly enough that you are motivated to stop fighting, stay in control, and work together as you end your marriage.

If you and your spouse do not yet agree on each and every issue of your divorce, that just means you have some negotiating to do. Mediation can be a useful tool to help you and your spouse find common ground on the difficult issues facing the both of you.

The most obvious advantage of uncontested divorce is its cost. Generally, an uncontested divorce that stays uncontested is almost always the least expensive way of getting divorced. I’m a big believer in finding the least expensive way to divorce. The simple fact is that any money you can avoid spending on lawyers is money you can use for living expenses after the divorce.Low cost is not the only advantage of uncontested divorce. If the level of conflict between you and your spouse is currently low, uncontested divorce offers a way to keep it that way.

An uncontested divorce is also more private than a divorce battle waged in open court. The terms you and your spouse negotiate and file with the court will be a matter of public record, but the disclosures and proposals made during negotiation can remain private, unlike the dirty laundry aired in open court. 

Another positive attribute of uncontested divorce is that a divorce decree can be obtained much more quickly than in a contested divorce. In Oklahoma, if there are no children of the marriage, a divorce decree can be issued within ten days of the filing of the divorce petition. If minor children are involved, there is a ninety day waiting period. On the other hand, an average time to complete a contested divorce case would be closer to six months or maybe longer depending on the complexity of the case and the level of cooperation between the parties.

Borrowed From:

http://oklahomafamilylawblog.typepad.com

(more…)



Thursday, February 8th, 2007

Step family and blended family issues

Margaret H. Oliver, Esquire wrote the following article published in the December 2006 issue of Family Law News, a newsletter published by the Section Council of the Section of Family and Juvenile Law of the Maryland State Bar Association, Inc.

             

Margaret H. Oliver, Esquire 
Collaborative Law, Mediation and Litigation 
         in Family Law
HODES, ULMAN, PESSIN & KATZ, P.A. 
Big firm talent, small firm appeal.

10500 Little Patuxent Parkway, Suite 650 
Columbia, Maryland 21044 
(Tel) 410-339-5798
(Fax) 410-832-5673 
www.hupk.com

Blended Families/Stepfamilies

            The blended family is becoming increasingly common.  The US Bureau of Census provides the following statistics from the 2000 Census:

  • 1300 new stepfamilies are forming every day;
  • Over 50% of US families are remarried or re-coupled;
  • The average marriage in the US lasts seven years;
  • One out of two marriages ends in divorce;
  • 75% remarry;
  • 66% of those living together or remarried break up when children are involved.

These statistics are not surprising to those of us working in the field of family law.  They do, however, provide insight into the issues that face blended families, particularly as it relates to children

(more…)